Wishful thinking, Apple Fanboi. It's widely guestimated that Samsung is paying $1-$5 range. Seriously, it would be nonsensical for Samsung to make low-end androids models that cost $150 when Microsoft tax alone accounts for 10%. Only in anantksundaram's wet dream.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tooltalk

I said less than $15.. Microsoft's initial asking price was $15, but nobody pays the asking-price - HTC was known to have struck a deal with Microsoft for $5. Samsung makes low / high end smartphones and is known to be paying anywhere between $1 - $5 per unit (or ~1% of total cost).

Using that line of reasoning how could Oracle have expected to get a couple of billion from suing Google over Android? What would be the difference between Oracle or Apple suing?

Completely irrelevant once again, congratulations for being confused. You're once again comparing apples to oranges, stretching facts as always. Now lets see what condescending, passive aggressive thing you have to say now.

I sure hope so. If TV had the same entertainment value as real life I can't imagine it ever talking off as a medium.

Hehe... that is really silly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macky the Macky

Oracle was suing Google over Java; not Android.

Quote:

Originally Posted by punkndrublic

Completely irrelevant once again, congratulations for being confused. You're once again comparing apples to oranges, stretching facts as always. Now lets see what condescending, passive aggressive thing you have to say now.

Guys guys.... I'm still wondering on what basis Apple would pursue Google. Let me put it this way, what does the stock version of Android infringe upon specifically? This is a real question as I don't think anyone will mistake it for IOS. I'm asking because I'd like to see someone answer this, not because I care about Android. I think it's weird that anyone would identify themselves and relate to others based on the phone they use.

Yes, they were suing Google over Android's supposedly stolen elements of Java to implement it, but that's beside the point. The question was directed to this statement:

"Although the software was written by Google they don't implement it, nor really profit from it. They can be sued but it's more difficult."

That's two reasons the OP gave for Apple not suing Google directly, and he's not the only one to have mentioned them before. They don't use it themselves and they don't really profit from it. Since neither of those two reasons discouraged Oracle from suing Google for billions, why would they discourage Apple?

Yes, they were suing Google over Android's supposedly stolen elements of Java to implement it, but that's beside the point. The question was directed to this statement:

"Although the software was written by Google they don't implement it, nor really profit from it. They can be sued but it's more difficult."

That's two reasons the OP gave for Apple not suing Google directly, and he's not the only one to have mentioned them before. They don't use it themselves and they don't really profit from it. Since neither of those two reasons discouraged Oracle from suing Google for billions, why would they discourage Apple?

Which lawsuit did Apple initiate after Google showed an interest in buying Moto? I believe Apple sued Motorola, not Google. The lawsuits simply became an inheritance, after the fact.

You and I had a short exchange over what you considered "patent trolling" several days ago. Does this fit with your definition?

"...Yet patent records show that Apple later provided at least two patents -- via a company named Cliff Island -- to Digitude Innovations, a Virginia-based patent aggregator (Non-practicing entity) that has as its major stakeholder Altitude Capital Partners, a New York-based venture capital firm.

The two patents that Apple transferred -- Patent Nos. 6,208,879 and 6,456,841 -- form half the basis of Digitude's February 2012 lawsuit (PDF) against Motorola Mobility ."

Read the entire article and learn why Google, Apple, Verizon and a dozen others initially funded Intellectual Ventures, one of the companies most often referred to as a "patent troll". Then continue to read why Google decided to break from them and not join for a second round of funding (but Apple did). You may come away with an understanding you didn't start with.

People act like the street view stuff Google is doing is something new when in fact Apple was pioneering the technology more than a decade before Google released StreetView.

I have used QTVR in the past. I think the part about stitching the images together was quite impressive. I bought a special lens for the purpose of creating those panoramics. I think one difference between how Google acquires their images is that they actually shoot the 360 degree view with a special camera instead of stitching sequential shots together. I have read the Apple patent and it definitely discusses adding at least two media objets to the scene so their patent seems different at least in the part about creating the VR scene.

With respect to the playback of the VR scene there may be some infringement however in the case of Google the process of manipulating the image is really just an ability of Flash. If you consider Flash a programming language which is compiled into an executable then I guess it is an application so it may infringe (of course I don't even play a lawyer on TV nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn last night)

I read recently that another company Panomap also has a patent and is suing both Apple and Google regarding QuickTime VR and Street View.

This is a bit disingenuous isn't it? The whole point is that Google ripped off Java to create Android in that "Davlik" is basically Java by another name. Technically, Oracle sued over Java, but the whole point of the suit is that Android infringed on their IP.

The thing that people should really sit up and take notice of about the Oracle/Google case is that it's pretty self-evident that Google did *intentionally* rip of Java in the creation of Davlik. Thera are mountains of similarity between the two, and there are emails from Google employees that clearly state their intentions to rip off Java and change it just enough so they wouldn't have to pay anything or get caught. There are many literary figures that have had their careers ended by so-called plagiarism wherein the small phrases they were supposed to have copied were much less damning than the pages and pages of similarities between Java and Davlik and no proof that they actually copied has ever come forward.

The lesson there is that Oracle lost this rather obvious case. The jury just didn't see it, and the jury in this case might not see the obviousness of Samsung copying Apple either. It's not so much about who is right and wrong and what the law is as what the average juror at the end of the day is going to believe. The facts are secondary as they were in the Oracle case.

Why so defensive and argumentative? How is the word "hearsay" and the phrase "potentially uninformed opinion" weasely?

There are informed and uninformed opinions. I would classify non-lawyers talking legalities and legal strategy to be people who fall into the latter category. Considering so many people here seem to get their "news" from few sources, "potentially uninformed" was the appropriate phrasing.

Please look up the word hearsay. Hearsay is not the equivalent to rumour. It is information not from the original source. Appleinsider is far from unbiased and if you disagree, you've been here too long.

Still trying to understand why you are being so defensive. I asked a valid question. It wasn't an attack. I would ask the same question of anyone who is happy to obtain their information from a single source.

Someone is being overly sensitive.

I could have been oversensitive, I know I sometimes am.

Your post however, whether intentionally or not, seemed to be making sweeping blanket statements about the unreliability of AppleInsider and stretching the language to do so. You were then referring to a courtroom blog (essentially on the same level as the sort of information one might get here), as some kind of paramount "source."

Hearsay is indeed sometimes used as a synonym for "rumour" it's one of it's main uses in fact. Rumour is hearsay "passed along," by definition.

The lesson there is that Oracle lost this rather obvious case. The jury just didn't see it, and the jury in this case might not see the obviousness of Samsung copying Apple either. It's not so much about who is right and wrong and what the law is as what the average juror at the end of the day is going to believe. The facts are secondary as they were in the Oracle case.

Possibly, but the jury doesn't have to decipher code this time (or at least not as much), they get to look at actual photos and compare finished HW and SW. I think that's a big benefit for Apple's lawyers in terms of getting the jury to understand what has been stolen.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Possibly, but the jury doesn't have to decipher code this time (or at least not as much), they get to look at actual photos and compare finished HW and SW. I think that's a big benefit for Apple's lawyers in terms of getting the jury to understand what has been stolen.

Depends how convincing a job Samsung has done with the whole EVERYONE GETS INSPIRED BY EVERYONE THEYRE SUING OVER ROUNDED RECTANGLES ANYWAY WE BUILT HALF THE PHONE WHO'S THE INNOVATOR NOW schtick.

I often wonder whether the current jury system is the best way to serve justice.

Take highly trained well educated lawyers, specialized in their field, to argue with each other, constantly breaking complex arguments into easy to understand soundbites,
so that the untrained, perhaps uneducated public jury, can make the final decision.

How can this jury (or any jury )decide on a complex case BUT to go by gut reaction and persuasion.

It's not a perfect system but it's the best system I can imagine.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

What manner of science do you think could be applied with verifiable and reliable tested methods of decision makings to show fault and determine a penalty?

I'm speaking here of jury system in general.

I think a "professional" jury made up of well educated, trained and specialized men and women. Sworn to impartiality and fairness. Trained in the language of law (a language that negates ambiguity and double meaning).

A jury that understands scientific evidence and its implications. ( for DNA evidence etc), would make more intelligent decisions and allow the lawyers to argue and present cases at a much higher level.

And in THIS case, a jury that understands copyright law vs fair use, inspiration vs plagiarism and the whole concept of patents - would be worth having.

I'm speaking here of jury system in general.
I think a "professional" jury made up of well educated, trained and specialized men and women. Sworn to impartiality and fairness. Trained in the language of law (a language that negates ambiguity and double meaning).
A jury that understands scientific evidence and its implications. ( for DNA evidence etc), would make more intelligent decisions and allow the lawyers to argue and present cases at a much higher level.

And in THIS case a jury that understands copyright law vs fair use. Inspiration vs plagiarism. And the whole concept of patents would be worth having.

You open up all sorts of problems with that. You're no longer selecting random people but selecting specific people. You could then argue that the people chosen were inherently biased because they are trained as, say, Java programmers. You could argue that there isn't anyone knowledgable enough to understand all (or enough) parts of any single case thus resulting in a mistrial. In murder cases do you only get other murder investigators or other people that have murdered on the jury? How is that fair?Edited by SolipsismX - 8/12/12 at 1:33pm

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Which lawsuit did Apple initiate after Google showed an interest in buying Moto? I believe Apple sued Motorola, not Google. The lawsuits simply became an inheritance, after the fact.

You and I had a short exchange over what you considered "patent trolling" several days ago. Does this fit with your definition?

"...Yet patent records show that Apple later provided at least two patents -- via a company named Cliff Island -- to Digitude Innovations, a Virginia-based patent aggregator (Non-practicing entity) that has as its major stakeholder Altitude Capital Partners, a New York-based venture capital firm.

The two patents that Apple transferred -- Patent Nos. 6,208,879 and 6,456,841 -- form half the basis of Digitude's February 2012 lawsuit (PDF) against Motorola Mobility ."

Read the entire article and learn why Google, Apple, Verizon and a dozen others initially funded Intellectual Ventures, one of the companies most often referred to as a "patent troll". Then continue to read why Google decided to break from them and not join for a second round of funding (but Apple did). You may come away with an understanding you didn't start with.

So you are saying the Google's "inheritance" means that Apple is not suing Google, although in actual fact they are.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.

Possibly, but the jury doesn't have to decipher code this time (or at least not as much), they get to look at actual photos and compare finished HW and SW. I think that's a big benefit for Apple's lawyers in terms of getting the jury to understand what has been stolen.

I think you may be right and I'm hoping the same thing.

In this case the legal vagueness might work in Apple's favour. All the techies are busily arguing about whether what Samsung did was technically legal or not, but to the average person it should come across as a fairly black and white case of copying.

I think that based on those internal assessment documents for instance, there is a very careful legal argument that can be made that (at least initially), Samsung didn't in fact set out to "copy," but merely wanted their designs to be "as good as Apple's." The average juror isn't likely to see that fine distinction IMO though.

It's pretty obvious in a "common sense" sort of way that Samsung is an avid copyist and I hope that is what the jury will end up focussing on.

In this case the legal vagueness might work in Apple's favour. All the techies are busily arguing about whether what Samsung did was technically legal or not, but to the average person it should come across as a fairly black and white case of copying.

I think that based on those internal assessment documents for instance, there is a very careful legal argument that can be made that (at least initially), Samsung didn't in fact set out to "copy," but merely wanted their designs to be "as good as Apple's." The average juror isn't likely to see that fine distinction IMO though.

It's pretty obvious in a "common sense" sort of way that Samsung is an avid copyist and I hope that is what the jury will end up focussing on.

The thing about a jury of random citizens is that it is not always a jury of your peers. They may look at the inside of the packaging for example and agree that it is very similar to Apple's but is that really against the law? Outside of the package, perhaps, but the inside... how could that confuse a potential consumer by copying a competitors trade dress? They already bought the product before they saw the inside of the box. The jury, just being average folks, need to be instructed by the judge what constitutes infringement and what does not, otherwise, they just go with their gut feeling which may or may not be based on any legal precedent.

In this case the legal vagueness might work in Apple's favour. All the techies are busily arguing about whether what Samsung did was technically legal or not, but to the average person it should come across as a fairly black and white case of copying.

I think that based on those internal assessment documents for instance, there is a very careful legal argument that can be made that (at least initially), Samsung didn't in fact set out to "copy," but merely wanted their designs to be "as good as Apple's." The average juror isn't likely to see that fine distinction IMO though.

It's pretty obvious in a "common sense" sort of way that Samsung is an avid copyist and I hope that is what the jury will end up focussing on.

Here's the funny part... the same average people that Samsung tried to fool into buying their products by making them look like Apple's products... are the same people who will find Samsung guilty.

I believe Samsung made their products look like Apple's product on purpose... and that's gonna bite 'em in the ass in this court case.

Here's the funny part... the same average people that Samsung tried to fool into buying their products by making them look like Apple's products... are the same people who will find Samsung guilty.
I believe Samsung made their products look like Apple's product on purpose... and that's gonna bite 'em in the ass in this court case.

That's irony, not justice. I think Samsung will be found guilty of something and in my limited understanding it will be up to the judge to determine the amount of the damages and the fine. The jurors, as you say, are the same fools who would have bought the Samsung product.

The thing about a jury of random citizens is that it is not always a jury of your peers. They may look at the inside of the packaging for example and agree that it is very similar to Apple's but is that really against the law? Outside of the package, perhaps, but the inside... how could that confuse a potential consumer by copying a competitors trade dress? They already bought the product before they saw the inside of the box. The jury, just being average folks, need to be instructed by the judge what constitutes infringement and what does not, otherwise, they just go with their gut feeling which may or may not be based on any legal precedent.

Very good points. The expression "tried by a jury of your peers" is rather misleading. In any given trial and any given random jury, how many jurors are really the peers of the defendant in aspects of life pertaining to the trial?

The challenge to the lawyers is to help the jurors understand the technical complexities and make an informed decision. This challenge is exacerbated by the fact that many lawyers are not learned in the technology itself. This all makes this, and other jury cases, a crap shoot.

I think the judgement of our legal system is that a randomly chosen group of people who know right from wrong is better then any class of specialists. It is too easy to suborn a group of specialists. No one knows who is going to be on the jury until a few days before the trial. The jury system may fail from time to time. We need laws that are simple and understandable by the average person. This is after all the reason so many people claim that patents are a broken system: No one can know ahead of time that they are using someone's IP because it is too complicated.

I think the judgement of our legal system is that a randomly chosen group of people who know right from wrong is better then any class of specialists. It is too easy to suborn a group of specialists. No one knows who is going to be on the jury until a few days before the trial. The jury system may fail from time to time. We need laws that are simple and understandable by the average person. This is after all the reason so many people claim that patents are a broken system: No one can know ahead of time that they are using someone's IP because it is too complicated.

That's an interesting way of looking at it. Perhaps the law should be simplified to accommodate the jury.

The same logic could be applied to medicine.

A heart surgery procedure could be carried out not by a specialist, but by a randomly chosen person.

It is just a matter of making a complicated procedure less complicated for the average person.

A heart surgery procedure could be carried out not by a specialist, but by a randomly chosen person.

It is just a matter of making a complicated procedure less complicated for the average person.

I'm pretty darn good at the Trauma Center series of games. I refuse to operate on anyone unless I have a medical diploma and surgical license. I love that our one working emoticon flashes on iDevices and my laptop for whatever freaking reason...

I often wonder whether the current jury system is the best way to serve justice.

Take highly trained well educated lawyers, specialized in their field, to argue with each other, constantly breaking complex arguments into easy to understand soundbites,

so that the untrained, perhaps uneducated public jury, can make the final decision.

How can this jury (or any jury )decide on a complex case BUT to go by gut reaction and persuasion.

Perhaps you didn't realize, but people are quite capable of understanding the law and evaluating how other people actions stand in relation to it. What good what any law be if when broken down and explained, ordinary people couldn't understand it? An effective lawyer is very good and presenting understandable explanations and average jurors are very good at detecting BS.

In my opinion, poor verdicts are rarely the result of a poor jury. Juries usually make very good decisions, based on the information they are given. Instead, it is the decisions and actions (or lack thereof) of the legal authorities that swings a case by controlling what information and instruction the jury receives.

Perhaps you didn't realize, but people are quite capable of understanding the law and evaluating how other people actions stand in relation to it. What good what any law be if when broken down and explained, ordinary people couldn't understand it? An effective lawyer is very good and presenting understandable explanations and average jurors are very good at detecting BS.

In my opinion, poor verdicts are rarely the result of a poor jury. Juries usually make very good decisions, based on the information they are given. Instead, it is the decisions and actions (or lack thereof) of the legal authorities that swings a case by controlling what information and instruction the jury receives.

While *people* are capable of understanding the general principles of the law, I don't think the majority of people truly understand the nuances and interpretations. Have you seen how voluminous each bill is? In many cases, the laws are so complex that even supreme court judges do not agree on what they really mean.

Having said that, I agree that the jury is rarely the reason for a bad verdict. Opposing attorneys balance each other out and, with a judge's guidance, do not allow each other to lead the jury down a garden path. But that's far from suggesting that you, I or Bob next door truly understand the law. We don't. I can state so confidently and correctly without knowing your profession because, simply, no one does.

We need laws that are simple and understandable by the average person. This is after all the reason so many people claim that patents are a broken system: No one can know ahead of time that they are using someone's IP because it is too complicated.

No! We need laws that cover as many scenarios as needed and as foreseeable. By definition, that requires complexity.

You are confusing legal complexity with complexity of patents.

Having said that, patents are necessarily complex for the same reason.